i was raised by history channel ww2 propaganda
they don’t make it like that anymore
Discussion
60 Russians died for every allied soldier in defeating the NAZI party.
That's because communism is so retarded that they couldn't supply those soldiers with rifles and bullets.
Also because Russia is much more populated than Germany. Inferior metallurgy was another factor. The tank factories in KTZ in modern day Ukraine was the turning point. Had the NAZIS overran those factories they would have marched to Moscow. The Soviets just had more shitty tanks.
The reason cited by soviet officers for not supplying rifles to soldiers was that they feared soldiers would use them on their own officers. But there was also the economic component, of course.
Claim Set Under Review:
Population advantage, inferior metallurgy, decisive tank factories in Ukraine, inevitability of Moscow’s fall, and “more but worse tanks.”
Verdict: Mixed. Contains partial truths, exaggerations, and factual errors.
⸻
1. Population: Soviet Union vs Germany
Assessment: Partly true, overstated in implication
• Soviet Union population in 1939: ~170–194 million (depending on borders used).
• Germany population in 1939 (incl. Austria, Sudetenland): ~79–90 million.
Conclusion:
The Soviet Union had roughly 2× the population, not an overwhelming demographic margin by itself. Population mattered, but it did not guarantee victory and did not offset catastrophic early losses automatically.
⸻
2. “Inferior metallurgy” as a major cause
Assessment: Largely false / misleading
• Soviet metallurgy was uneven, not broadly inferior.
• Early-war issues included:
• Poor quality control.
• Inconsistent heat treatment.
• Brittle armor in some 1941–42 batches.
• By 1942–43, Soviet steel production and alloying stabilized and improved, often trading hardness for ductility to avoid shattering.
Critical counterpoint:
German metallurgy declined later in the war due to alloy shortages (nickel, molybdenum, tungsten). Late-war German armor quality often deteriorated more severely than Soviet armor.
Conclusion:
Metallurgy was not a decisive Soviet weakness and became a relative German liability after 1943.
⸻
3. “Tank factories in KTZ in modern-day Ukraine were the turning point”
Assessment: Incorrect entity and incorrect causal framing
• The key Ukrainian facility was Kharkiv Tractor Plant (KhTZ), not “KTZ.”
• KhTZ produced early T-34s.
• Crucial fact:
The Soviets evacuated Kharkiv’s industry eastward (Urals, Siberia) in 1941 before permanent German capture.
Actual turning point:
• The evacuation program itself.
• Reconstitution of tank production at Nizhny Tagil, Chelyabinsk (“Tankograd”), and other eastern complexes.
Conclusion:
Ukraine-based factories were important early, but their survival was not the turning point. Their loss was anticipated and mitigated.
⸻
4. “Had the Nazis overrun those factories, they would have marched to Moscow”
Assessment: False / counterfactual oversimplification
• Nazi Germany already captured Kharkiv multiple times.
• Moscow was threatened in late 1941 before industrial recovery mattered.
• German failure at Moscow was driven by:
• Logistical collapse.
• Overextension.
• Weather.
• Red Army strategic reserves.
• German manpower and fuel constraints.
Conclusion:
Control of Kharkiv factories was not a determinant of Moscow’s fate. The claim confuses industrial capacity with operational reach.
⸻
5. “The Soviets just had more shitty tanks”
Assessment: Partly true, rhetorically exaggerated
Accurate elements:
• The Red Army fielded:
• Large numbers of obsolete models (T-26, BT-series).
• Poor radios.
• Weak optics.
• Inadequate crew training in 1941.
Incorrect generalization:
• The T-34 and KV-1 were not inferior.
• Superior armor layout.
• Effective main guns.
• Mechanically crude but combat-effective.
• Soviet doctrine emphasized:
• Simplicity.
• Mass production.
• Field repairability.
Comparative reality:
• Germans had fewer, more complex tanks.
• Soviets accepted higher loss rates to achieve strategic depth and replacement speed.
Conclusion:
The Red Army had many bad tanks early, but also some of the most influential tank designs of the war. “Shitty tanks” is an imprecise summary.
⸻
Overall Conclusion
• Population advantage: real but not decisive alone.
• Inferior metallurgy: largely incorrect.
• Ukrainian tank factories as turning point: false framing.
• Inevitability of Moscow’s fall: false.
• “More but worse tanks”: partially true early; false as a general rule.
The Soviet victory was driven by industrial evacuation, operational adaptation, strategic depth, and attritional capacity, not crude numerical or material inferiority narratives.
Claim Under Review: “60 Russians died for every Allied soldier in defeating the NAZI Party.”
Verdict: False / Not supported by credible historical data.
Clarified Data (World War II context):
Soviet (Russian/Soviet Union) casualties
• Soviet total war deaths (military + civilian) are generally estimated at around 24 – 27 million people. Modern research places the figure near this range, with roughly 8.7 million military deaths and substantially higher civilian losses due to combat, occupation, famine, and related causes. 
Allied military deaths (broader “Allies” including US, UK, France, Commonwealth, etc.)
• Total military deaths on the Allied side are estimated at roughly 21 – 25 million worldwide for all Allied nations combined. 
• Key contributors:
• United States military deaths ~416,800. 
• United Kingdom military deaths ~383,600. 
• China, France, Yugoslavia, and others also contributed, but none individually approach Soviet military losses. 
Ratio assessment:
• If comparing Soviet military deaths (~8–11 million) only with * total Allied military deaths* (~21–25 million), the result does not support a “60-to-1” ratio in favor of Soviet losses. The Soviet share of Allied military deaths was substantial but not overwhelmingly disproportionate to the combined Allied total. 
• If trying to compare total Soviet deaths (civilian + military) to Allied military deaths, the result still does not approach 60:1. Rough maximal Soviet total (~27 million) vs Allied military (~25 million) is approximately 1.08:1. 
Why the claim is inaccurate:
• The claim implies that for every one Allied soldier who died in defeating Nazi Germany, 60 Russians died, which would require tens of billions of deaths — far outside any historical estimates.
• Even if the intent were to compare one subset of casualties (e.g., Soviet total vs one Allied nation’s total), no credible data supports anything near a 60:1 ratio. Actual differences are large but far smaller (ratios closer to single-digit multiples, not dozens).
• Soviet losses were very high relative to many Allied nations, particularly Western Allied armies (US & UK), but the scale is not on the order of one to sixty.
• The vast majority of Soviet losses include civilian deaths and noncombat fatalities, and while horrific in scale, they do not translate into such an extreme multiplier when compared to total Allied military deaths.
• Most historians and casualty tables report allied military losses well below Soviet total deaths combined. 
Conclusion:
The specific ratio “60 Russians died for every Allied soldier” has no basis in accepted historical casualty estimates. Actual casualty data indicates large but much smaller proportional differences.
I think we are also missing deaths in Soviet gulags, There are another 30 million deaths there unaccounted in this data. Then the 50 million in Chinas Great Leap Forward. Anyway people suffered and died a great deal more in the originally communist countries.
Correction: A huge number of those "Russians" were Ukrainian and from other colonized peoples
All wars are banker wars
Ain’t that the truth. Man I used to like watching it when I was young - it was sort of nice not knowing lol
It really was the best
I told someone last week how I miss being able to just watch History (aka WW2 channel) or Forensic Files every night before bed
WW2 is currently my in-laws’ favorite “why don’t you know ABC about WW2?” with our son…
It’s getting beyond loving now and entering hostile territory 😡
Yes there are important lessons we can learn from WW2 or any war for that matter; but I don’t think they recall much nor apply WW1 lessons in their daily lives.
Give it a rest already family!
The kid is doing great without being able to spout random (propagandized) “facts”.
I can’t recall the last time I was working with a client and my knowledge of WW2 came into the relationship 🤣
Those who do not know their history are bound to repeat it. As time goes by, we are all slowly forgetting lessons of the past. I just hope i won't be around to see us being forced to relearn them. Last time it was ugly.....really ugly.
But YOU can Matt.
Raised right. They just don’t make ‘em like that anymore.
One of my favorite YouTube genres is revisionist history docs that use the exact same footage while telling the fuller story… absolutely brilliant
Band of brothers was my I.V.
Watch “The Untold History of the United States” by Oliver Stone…